Lease/Transfer Policies under the Walker Basin Restoration Program - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Development of Mono County’s Water Lease/Transfer Policies under the Walker Basin Restoration Program Mono Resource Conservation District Meeting September 26, 2016

Summary of Presentation • Overview of Walker Basin Restoration Program and Mono County’s potential involvement • Objectives of Mono County’s program and program definition/project description for CEQA review • Alternatives considered under CEQA • Outreach: Feedback we’ve received • Timeline

Overview of the Walker Basin Restoration Program and Mono County’s Potential Involvement

Overview of Walker Basin Restoration Program • Program established 2009 by Congress to restore the ecological health of Walker Lake and its watershed • Walker Basin Conservancy established in 2014, to lead the effort to restore and maintain Walker Lake while protecting the agricultural, environmental and recreational interests in the Walker Basin • Restoration achieved through acquiring water decree rights to leave water on the Walker River

Mono County’s Potential Involvement in Program • A portion of the Walker Basin is in Mono County in California and could be part of the program • Mono County is examining the potential risks, benefits, and procedural considerations involved in the establishment of a water transactions program within the California portion of the basin • Participation by California water rights holders will require a General Plan Amendment to allow the transfers

2012 MOU between NFWF and Mono County • MOU Mono County and NFWF (2012) - – National Fish and Wildlife Foundation agreed to not authorize expenditure from Desert Terminal Lake Fund on programs within Mono without concurrence from the County – Mono County agreed to review and consider approving proposals presented by RCD (or other parties) for implementation of short term lease or other proposals – RCD is interested in facilitating the development of information related to the California Program to aid design and implementation of programs

Mono County’s Objectives and Program Definition/Project Description for CEQA Review

Mono County Objectives • Ensure that any future program is consistent with existing General Plan policies To develop a policy for water transfer that is • consistent with County values Maintain agricultural and rural ethos of the ─ county Retain and restore biological diversity ─ Enhance recreational opportunities for ─ visitors Identify sustainable limits for water transfer • • Undertake CEQA to assess the potential impacts of a water transfer program

Program Definition/Project Description under CEQA • CEQA program definition/project description elements – Proposed County General Plan policies – Transaction scenario – Anticipated transaction types

County General Plan Policy Goals affected by a Water Transaction Program • Preserve natural open-space resources which contribute to the general welfare and quality of GOAL 1 life for residents and visitors in Mono County and to the maintenance of the county's tourism economy. • Maintain an abundance and variety of GOAL 2 vegetation, aquatic and wildlife types in Mono County for recreational use, natural diversity, scenic value, and economic benefits. • Ensure the availability of adequate surface and groundwater resources to meet existing and GOAL 3 future domestic, agricultural, recreational, and natural resource needs in Mono County. • Protect the quality of surface and groundwater GOAL 4 resources to meet existing and future domestic, agricultural, recreational, and natural resource needs in Mono County. • Preserve and protect agricultural and grazing GOAL 5 lands in order to promote both the economic and open-space values of those lands.

Transaction Scenario • Inputs – What are the budgets at WRID and WBC? – Acquisition strategy, i.e. how much will the programs focus on California? – What water rights are available? – Estimate of water purchase price • Estimates – Set upper boundary of likely transaction scenarios, i.e. how many water-righted acres could be transfered? – Develop spatial distributions of potential transactions

Transaction Scenario: Walker Basin Water Rights Estimates of Type/Location Acres Available of Water Acres Percent Acquired by Acres Rights WBC Nevada Decree 55,857 6,000 49,857 42% New Land 34,500 5,000 29,500 26% Nevada 90,357 79,357 68% Subtotal California West Walker 18,142 18,142 14% East Walker 23,669 23,669 18% Subtotals 41,834 41,811 32% Totals All 132,192 121,168 100% Rights

Transaction Scenario: Estimated Available Water Rights in Walker Basin Storage Rights Decreed Water Rights Location Acres Rate (cfs) Acre-feet West Walker Antelope Valley 16,067 251 Above Antelope 2,075 33 >1,550 Valley East Walker Bridgeport Valley 23,669 376 Above Bridgeport 6,410 Valley Totals 41,811 660 >7,960

Transaction Scenario: Water Right Target Acquisition Upper Boundary Equitable Water Acquisition between CA and NV Water Right Water Rights Item Purchase Leasing Remaining as of 2018 ($ million) 108.30 25.00 Remaining as of 2021 ($ million) 54.15 12.50 Max Portion to California (at 32%) ($ 18.95 4.00 * million) Purchase Price per Wet Acre-Foot ($/AF) 1,800 Lease Price per Acre ($/acre) 320 Wet Duty (AF/acre) 3.2 Max Acre-Feet Purchased/Leased 10,528 Max Acres Purchased/Leased 3,290 11,000 Portion of Total CA Acreage Water Rights 7.9% * unlikely that WBC could close any transactions in California until 2021 .

Anticipated Transaction Types • Water rights sale/leasing – Includes sale of water rights with and without the associated land • Storage rights sale/leasing – Would need to analyze transfer in low, average and good years • For all transactions analysis would need to describe the range of timing, location and extent of transactions

Alternatives Considered Under CEQA

CEQA Alternatives • CEQA alternatives are driven by the significant environmental impacts • Alternatives could include: – All transfer options with County regulation – All transfer options no County regulation – Storage water only – Leasing only • Includes temporary transfer of water rights • Sale of storage water – Reduced Target – No Project • Additional Alternatives?

Outreach: Feedback we’ve received …

Conversations – Antelope Valley • Water rights leasing possible • Water rights sale possible owing to AVWMC managing water within the Antelope Valley – Price needs to be correct – Locations specific acquisition could be net benefit e.g. transfer of rights adjacent to riparian corridors

Conversations – Bridgeport Valley • Water leasing and sale of storage water feasible • Sale of water rights unlikely – Heavily constrained by existing agricultural conservation easement • Management and opportunity to transfer water either: a)Early season prior to irrigation season b)Late season post irrigation season

Conversations – Resource Conservation District • Agricultural Producers – Price – dependent on government appraisal rate – Conditions - Dependent on extent of County regulation • Public – Antelope Valley - even partial de-watering will bring (partial) de- greening – Water rights sales could encourage farmers to sell off land for residential subdivisions – Bridgeport Valley – aggravation of existing sanctioned water quality problems – Mono County – potential reduction of property taxes for reduced production agriculture land and curtailed economic activity – Reduction of open space – Biological and cultural resource impacts – Visual impacts

Areas to Consider • Potential issue areas* Maintain agricultural land use for economic base, open space, and rural character of the region – Maintain scenic qualities and aesthetic character of the region – Protect habitat values and species of concern – Protect wetland values – Protect groundwater resources – Maintain economic stability for both individuals and communities – Protect cultural resources – Protect other water users from injury – Transferring water across state lines – Conflict with existing conservation plans * 2014 RCD Feasibility Assessment of a Water Transactions Program in the Walker River Basin

Timeline

Timeline - Policy Development and CEQA Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sept 1 Oct 1 Policy Development Technical Studies Project Description Scoping/IS Prepare Draft EIR DEIR Review Final EIR and MMRP Notice of Review and Preparation Adoption of Policy Notice of Availability Public Input Public Review